From the time the Pilgrims arrived on American soil, faith in God played an important part in shaping our nation. Images of Moses adorn the Supreme Court in recognition of the Judeo-Christian origin of our laws. But it was Taxes, loss of Liberty and oppression from a mad king that led our Founding Fathers to write The Declaration of Independence and start The American Revolution. Today, those who stand for these ideals no longer call themselves The Silent Majority because we are silent no more.
This has to be the quote of the day, and maybe even the quote of the year. Juan Williams, the former National Public Radio host who was canned for making an honest assessment of his feelings about sitting on an airplane with Muslims, just revealed this observation about the way leftists manage to control the news media, as reported on Fox News.
Fox News political analyst and “Special Report” panelist Juan
Williams said in an interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas that
mainstream media outlets “stab” and “kill” dissenting voices.
Williams was fired from National Public Radio in 2010 after saying he
sometimes gets “nervous” when seated on an airplane with Muslims, while
making a broader point about the importance of religious tolerance.
“I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the
right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded
about hearing the other side,” he said. “In fact, what I have learned
is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the
scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who
are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down,
stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not
telling the story in the way that they want it told.”
Anyone who believes that we do not have the God-given right to self-defense doesn't understand what being an American is all about. Anyone who doesn't understand the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment doesn't know American History. Our Founding Fathers understood that our Rights come from God and cannot be controlled by government. Our Founding Fathers knew that when government fears the people we have Liberty and when the people fear the government we have tyranny. This is, perhaps, the single motivating factor why leftists first subverted the education system in America to prevent our younger generation from learning these truths. Dictators throughout history knew that guns in the hands of citizens meant freedom and to solidify totalitarian control, disarming the people was the first priority. Here is a very passionate speech that explains these truths from one person's point of view.
Dan Bongino at Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD PatriotPost
On the lighter side of the Gun Control issue we have Barack Hussein Obama's comical side kick, Joe Biden, giving his advice to women across America on how to defend themselves. Of course, Joe Biden wasn't trying to be funny, he just comes across that way every time he says something.
Man follows Vice President's advice..... gets
arrested
In a Google+ Handout centered around gun control, Vice President Joe Biden
said:
"As I told my wife... I said: Jill, if there's ever a problem just walk out
on the balcony here or walk out... put that double barrel shotgun... and fire
two blasts outside the house"
Well, some guy in Virginia Beach, VA did just that... and was promptly
arrested:
Updated: Monday, 25 Feb 2013,
1:27 PM EST Published : Monday, 25 Feb 2013, 1:27 PM EST
A 22-year-old man found himself facing a summons after he
told officers he fired his shotgun repeatedly upon finding masked suspects
leaning in his window.
According to Grazia Moyers with the Virginia Beach Police Department,
officers responded to the 500 block of Mango Drive around 10:30 p.m. Saturday
for a report of shots fired.
There, they spoke with the resident, Trevor Lamont Snowden, who told police
his dog was acting strange. When he walked to his bedroom, he said he saw two
masked suspects leaning in his open window.
Snowden told police the suspects pointed weapons at him and told him to
shut the bedroom door. Thinking the suspects were going to rob him, he moved
into the hallway and retrieved a shotgun.
Moyers said Snowden fired through his bedroom door, then opened the door
and fired several more rounds toward the window. Any suspects fled the area and
could not be located by officers.
No one was injured and there were no reports of damage to other
property.
Snowden was charged with reckless handling of a firearm in the incident and
released on a summons.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The guy should tell the judge: "Hey, I was just following the Vice
President's suggestion...."
And a very funny video showing just how stupid Joe Biden's advice really is.
Humorous: Women Take Joe Biden’s ‘Buy a Shotgun!’ Advice
A parody video showing women taking Joe Biden’s “buy a shotgun!”
advice illustrates the difference between shooting a shotgun and an
AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle.
I have written before about the enormous amount of ammunition being purchased by the Dept. of Homeland Security and other agencies of the Federal government. Facts show that more than 2 BILLION rounds of ammo have been purchased so far. Compared to the 5.5 MILLION rounds that our military is using per month in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones, our government is stockpiling enough ammo to last 20 years. If that information isn't enough to worry about how about this. The government is using a new kind of target for practice shooting - targets they call "No More Hesitation" that include pregnant women and children holding guns. I think the name says it all. Get the agents used to shooting at pregnant women and children on the target range so that they will not hesitate to shoot at them in real life.
The company making the targets is Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. and they are
providing DHS and law enforcement departments all across the U.S. with
targets ”designed to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly
force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during
training.” This was recently reported on The Allegiant, a web site that describes itself as a Progressive Sociopolitical Network in their story: DHS Using Children and Pregnant Women as Targets.
Another story that made the rounds last month was the Urban Warfare exercises conducted in several cities across America. I wrote about the Urban Warfarenight training in Miami, Florida, Houston, Texas and several other cities that included Army Blackhawk helicopters flying below rooftop levels firing blank rounds of machine gun fire that scared the crap out of lots of people. While several local television stations reported the local events that included citizen-captured videos, none of the national news media bothered to give it much coverage and no one offered any explanation. But the above mentioned web site, The Allegiant did and they wrote about some very dramatic insight. This is what they said in their report:
Written by: David Bard on February 6, 2013.
Last revised by: Michael Caldwell
I spoke with a high-ranking, military source in DHS. Preferring to remain unnamed for obvious reasons, he told me, “DHS and DOD are conducting desensitizing exercises all across the U.S.,” he paused, then added, “we’re being prepared for mass civil unrest in major U.S. cities. DOD will be expected to help – when we’re requested.”
I asked if there was a timeline for expecting civil unrest in our cities and why should we expect it to begin with. I was told that there were many reasons, but that the continued devaluation of our currency, the predicted history-setting prices for gasoline this summer and the continued gun control debate are forming a perfect storm of civil discontent. When this storm hits, it will most assuredly produce mass casualties. When does DHS expect this to happen? This summer.
Its time we started connecting the dots and put an end to all the doubt. Something very bad is about to happen. The facts are right in front of our eyes like pieces of a puzzle and all we have to do it put them together. There cannot be any more coincidences. Reports came out recently that several high-ranking military officers have been submitting their resignations or suddenly retiring. Then it was suggested they were being asked if they could order their troops to shoot on American civilians - on American soil. Not shoot on terrorists but shoot on ordinary American civilians. Last year it was revealed that FEMA has constructed concentration camps in America that they call Internment Centers. Then the U.S. Army posted job bulletins for Internment Specialists to run the camps. But this doesn't seem to be enough to grab anyone's attention in the leftist national news media. Even though the Democrats, at the insistence of Barack Hussein Obama, have passed laws giving the U.S. Army the power to arrest and detain without trial any American citizen. Even though Congress voted for The Patriot Act to suspend key articles of The Bill of Rights. Our Dept. of Homeland Security classifying returning war vets, 2nd Amendment and Pro-Life supporters as potential domestic terrorists, our government, which was once referred to as "of the people, for the people and by the people" now seems to be very close to a totalitarian dictatorship.
Now we switch over to the current budget talks and the subject of Sequestration and what will happen in a few weeks when Barack Hussein Obama fails to reach an accord with the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Drastic layoffs are coming and more than 600,000 civilian employees of the Defense Dept., alone, will be out of work. The Pentagon notified Congress on Wednesday it will be furloughing its
civilian workforce of 800,000 employees if sequestration goes into
effect March 1.Cutbacks in the size of our military. Overhaul schedules in naval shipyards are being cancelled and reports say that includes weapons system upgrades, as well. The net result will be a drastic reduction in our military strength and capabilities. Many conservative bloggers,as well as the leadership of the Republican Party, are suggesting that all of these thingsare the result of a
gross failure in leadership on the part of the Democrat administration but I think there is something more to it that that. Suppose for a moment that Barack Hussein Obama has planned this failure all along? Not planned for it but actually planned to make it happen. Suppose he wants the military to be whittled down to a fourth rate power? Suppose he wants the economy in America to collapse? Suppose he wants to create an excuse to cause civil unrest that would warrant a national emergency so great as to suspend civil rights and institute Martial Law? And suppose he has planned for dealing with it by stocking up on 2 billion rounds of hollow-point ammo, the kind of bullets that has been outlawed for use in warfare by the Geneva Convention? Suppose he is getting his wish to create a civilian national security force of DHS and TSA troops conditioned to shoot pregnant women and children in the civil war he has anticipated? Do you recall him saying so on his campaign stop on July 2, 2008? "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the
national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a
civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as
strong, just as well-funded. [YouTube, 7/2/08]" And suppose their timetable is accurate and it will all begin this summer?
Now suppose, also, that our enemies are fully aware of this? Suppose they are waiting for a moment of opportunity when America becomes gravely weakened by our economic distress and internal conflicts? Think of Civil War and the collapse of the economy with unaffordable gas prices, food shortages and catastrophic unemployment. We are living on a bubble that is ready to pop as soon as a little more pressure builds up or someone sticks a pin in it. And we certainly have enough enemies around the world to worry about. We got a crazy dictator in North Korea testing his ICBMs and his nuclear weapons. We got another crazy dictator in Iran hellbent on building his own atomic bombs. We've got communist regimes in Russia, China and Venezuela that would love to see us destroyed. Didn't the Russian's have a few bombers carrying atomic weapons fly around Guam last week? Were they testing our defenses? Lets say for the moment that China and Russia, both communist regimes, have different ideas on what to do with a weakened America. Suppose China was concerned over the Russian bombers flying over Guam? Suppose the Chinese decided they need to protect some of their investments in America to secure the TRILLIONS of dollars they loaned us and planned an invasion? What was once the plot of a few Hollywood movies is a lot closer to reality today. Now suppose the background story concerning Barack Hussein Obama was added to the mix? The fact that he was mentored by a known card-carrying member of the Communist Party for 8 years before he even went to college. And while in college Obama had the audacity to admit he joined several radical socialist groups. And after college he launched his political career in the living room of two communists named Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. And then he joined the socialist New Party in Chicago to help get elected to the Illinois legislature. And after a meteoric rise in the Democratic Socialist Party he gets to run the whole show and surrounds himself with radical Muslims and communists. I believe his whole plan from the very beginning was to weaken America, disarm our citizens and lay the groundwork for our destruction.
What is wrong with love, anyway? Most of the world slowed down yesterday to celebrate Valentine's Day, wherein couples of all ages took a moment and said something nice to their significant others. Everyone except the Muslims who rule in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, countries controlled by Islamic Sharia Law. Good versus Evil equates to Love versus Hate but in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan Valentine's Day has been outlawed and they even go so far as to ban the color red on that day. To be fair, the Muslims in Saudi Arabia regarded Valentine's Day as much a celebration of love as anyone else but the government, ruled by Islamic Sharia Law, took exception to the celebration of love and they made it illegal. Muslims in Pakistan, being less sophisticated than in Saudi Arabia are totally brainwashed by their religious leadersand known to erupt into mindless rage over anything they are told is an insult to Islam.Maybe that is because the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, contains more hate filled text than any other holy book from any other religion. In fact, if the hate filled text in the Qur'an were judged the same way as any hate filled publication, the entire so-called Religion of Peace would be declared a hate group.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.
And here are a few reposts about Valentine's Day from the Australian web site, Winds of Jihad.
Valentines Day: Day of Love or Hate?
by sheikyermami on February 14, 2013
Hating Valentine’s
First of all, lets have a look where the hatred comes from. Would it
surprise you that the cultural Marxists are in cahoots with the soldiers
of allah to destroy the Day of Love, just like they would ruin
Christmas and take your guns and your religion away from all you ‘bitter
clingers?’
Supporters
of Pakistan’s main religious party staged a noisy protest against
Valentine’s Day on Tuesday, denouncing it as un-Islamic and calling for a
“day of modesty” instead.
Yesterday was Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate
companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another.
If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this
day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the
places you should be spending most, if any, of your time. Indeed, it’s
pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the
hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on
which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.
The train is never late: every time Valentine’s comes around, the
Muslim world reacts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing
everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the
celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against
Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is
literally outlawed in Islamist states.
In Pakistan just a few days ago, for instance, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in
Peshawar to vehemently denounce Valentine’s Day. Demonizing it as
“un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day of love has
“spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the
student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, warned that the
organization will not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning
that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from
holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our
own way.”
This Islamist outcry in Peshawar against Valentine’s Day reflects
many other protests and outcries against the day of love throughout the
Muslim War this year. It is a mirror image of what transpired in Aceh
province in Indonesia last year, when Muslim clerics issued a stern warning to Muslims, the younger generation in particular, against observing Valentine’s Day.Tgk
Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated
that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does
not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out
for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can
just imagine what will happen to the guilty parties caught celebrating
their love for one another.
The Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating
Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious “morality” police always
officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about
Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of
Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported,
the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and
the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other
gifts. They arrest women
for wearing red on that day. Every year the Saudis announce that,
starting the week of Valentine’s and until a certain day in the future,
it is illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day. As Claude Cartaginese reported at Newsreal Blog about
Valentine’s Day in Saudi Arabia two years ago, any merchant found
selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially
dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any
items wrapped in red, had to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi
justice.
Christian overseas workers living in the Kingdom from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions,
heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting
anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift
that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented:
“We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers,
just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”
The Iranian despots, meanwhile, consistently try to make sure that
the Saudis don’t outdo them in annihilating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s
“morality” police consistently order shops
to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing
on this day — and anytime around this day. In Pakistan, as mentioned
earlier, the student wing of the fundamentalist Islamic party
Jamaat-e-Islami has traditionally called for a complete ban on
Valentine’s Day celebrations. Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in the
party, calls it a “shameful day.”
Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a
development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the
radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the
Community) went on a rampage in
Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two
dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops,
burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.
In the West, meanwhile leftist feminists are not to be outdone by
their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to kill — Valentine’s Day.
Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for
instance, you will find the demonization of Valentine’s Day, since, as
the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a
manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and
oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.
As a person who spent more than a decade in academia, I was
privileged to witness this grotesque attack against and “deconstruction”
of Valentine’s Day at close range. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda,
meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large.
As David Horowitz has documented,
Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day”
(“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it,
a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.
So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of
Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does
it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam
together into its feast of hate?
The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and
the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible
and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore,
distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.
The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to
shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one
another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History,
therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious
war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam,
the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender
apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.
The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist,
Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In
Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and
counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged
war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar
ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments
filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize
devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state.
Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of
personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of
totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.
The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World,all
powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of
personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and
completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual
promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules
with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also
into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces
the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great
Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to
passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In
Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and
broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed
behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World,
promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under
regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent
private connection.
Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human
beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone
who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular
deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone
else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation
is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the
totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more
powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to
impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers,
therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that
the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia)
stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.
This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz document in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill
Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech
defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility
for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that
notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to
destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be
responsible to the entire collective.”
Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within
its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years,
to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon
Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and
other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment.
This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main
objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an
eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while
private love was forbidden) in We, 1984,and Brave New World.
Thus, it becomes completely understandable why leftist believers were
so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China,
Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul
Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow
travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that
the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the
leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing
attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds
its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings
to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform”
symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual
expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and
affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only
uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form
of totalitarian puritanism.
This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support all that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the burqa “sexy.” And
it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni
Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping
Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must be veiling themselves.
Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the
radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene,
since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian
order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and
veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to
the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and
so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man
that smacks of anything that it means to be human.
And so perhaps it is precisely on this Valentine’s Day that we are
reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with
the ugly and perniciousunholy alliance that
seeks to destroy our civilization. On this day, we are reminded that we
have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in
front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from
in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its
piercing light. That arsenal is love. And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi
fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and
tortured their victims. And no al-Qaeda jihadist in Pakistan or Feminazi
on any American campus will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter
how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.
Love will prevail.
Happy Valentine’s Day to all of our Frontpage readers.
Wikipedia says:Currently, Democrats are in control of the Senate and House. The
64th Colorado General Assembly was the first to be controlled by the Democrats in
forty years.
Just thought you’d like to know before reading the
following.
Nelson
Colorado Senate president
reacts to marijuana smell in Capitol: ‘Please douse all the doobies’
By Stephen C. Webster Thursday, February
14, 2013 10:54 EST
The strong odor of marijuana wafted through the
Colorado capitol building on Wednesday morning, and was apparently so pungent
that the state senate’s president asked members over the intercom to “please
douse all the doobies in the area.” Video of state Sen. John Morse’s (D) comment was lifted from the chamber’s recordings
by ABC 7 News Denver reporter Anica
Padilla. It’s not clear who in the Capitol had the
marijuana, or whether any was being smoked nearby.
Imagine if during World War II President Franklin Roosevelt appointed a member of the Nazi Party to be the head of the OSS? The OSS was the Office of Strategic Services, it was the United States intelligence agency formed during World War II. It was a predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The OSS was formed in order to coordinate espionage activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States Armed Forces. Would that have raised any eyebrows in the news media? Well, now suppose in the midst of our war against terror, the one-time Muslim, mentored by a Communist, Democrat Barack Hussein Obama nominated a Muslim to head the CIA? Nominated a Muslim to fight a war that was started by Muslims following the Muslim hijacking of four U.S. airliners who flew them on a religious suicide mission into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. A war that has pitted us against radical Islamic groups such as al Qaida which was led by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, both of which were created by The Muslim Brotherhood. A war that has cost us over 8,000 American lives which include almost 3,000 civilians killed on September 11, 2001 and the remainder in U.S. servicemen and women killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, suppose no longer because that is exactly what is happening today. Now read the details from the Australian web site Winds of Jihad and The Investigative Project on Terrorism.
John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, converted to Islam while working in Saudi Arabia,
states former FBI agent, John Guandolo. John Guandolo wrote the first
Muslim Brotherhood training manual for the FBI. Watch the detailed story
in this explosive interview.
Rasool Obama wants to make John Brennan director of the CIA.
Brennan
“marvelled at the majesty of the hajj and the holy two mosques” while
he was the station chief of the CIA in Soddy Barbaria.
This is the turd who told us that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely
secular”, “jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam”and the same Brennan
called for a stop to “Iran bashing.”
He has helped strip language about “radical Islam” and similar terms
from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to “violent
extremism.” When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word
does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what the
terrorists themselves say.
Creeping Sharia asked this very question back in a February 2010 post. In that video, Brennan stated “Those Who Are Anti-Islam are a National Security Threat.” It has since been deleted from the web.
Yesterday, a former U.S. Marine and FBI agent confirmed on the trentovision radio/tv show that indeed John Brennan did convert to Islam. Watch to the end.
“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia.”
Brennan’s Feb. 13, 2010 address to a meeting at the
Islamic Center at New York University, facilitated by the Islamic
Society of North America (ISNA), provided an insight into his views on
Islam, a faith which he said during the speech had “helped to shape my
own world view.”
Like the president during his childhood years in Jakarta, I came to
see Islam not how it is often misrepresented, but for what it is – how
it is practiced every day, by well over a billion Muslims worldwide, a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.”
Brennan Lets Radical Islamists Dictate Policy
During his time as a White House advisor, Brennan displayed a
disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are
hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those
meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all
Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have anyone represent its concerns.
Organized by
the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the talk became an outlet
for Brennan’s argument that terrorists benefit from being identified by
religious terms, including “jihadist.” In doing so, Brennan waded into
theological revisionism by denying the Quranic foundation exists, even
though jihadists routinely cite chapter and verse.
“As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak
themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are
clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of
creating, they destroy – bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They
are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for
a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or
pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and
children,” Brennan said. “We’re trying to be very careful and precise in
our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images
we project really do have resonance. It’s the reason why I don’t use
the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them the religious
legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain’t gonna give it to them.”
Like his positions on Iran and Hizballah, Brennan’s views about using
religious references like “jihad” have been uttered repeatedly and
consistently. “President Obama [does not] see this challenge as a fight
against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the
legitimate term ‘jihad,’ which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy
struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious
legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve,” Brennan said in
an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because
jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to
purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or
legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,”
Brennan said.
Brennan’s interpretation of jihad stands in stark contrast with how
the term has been consistently understood, especially by the
intellectual founders of the global Islamist movement.
Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose ideas have
influenced all subsequent Islamic extremists including Hamas and
Al-Qaida, rejected the definition of jihad that Brennan suggests is
correct.
In a pamphlet titled “Jihad,”
al-Banna wrote: “Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting
the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one’s ego
is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is
quoted as proof: ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on
the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said:
‘The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one’s ego. This narration
is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any
preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah’s
way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition …”
Sayyid Qutb, al-Banna’s successor in defining Islamist thought,
clearly endorsed the idea of violent jihad, suggesting that it should
not be fought merely in a defensive manner.
“Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion
will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through
fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in
the application of the Islamic movement. He will understand that Islam
is not a ‘defensive movement’ in the narrow sense which today is
technically called a ‘defensive war.’ This narrow meaning is ascribed to
it by those who are under the pressure of circumstances and are
defeated by the wily attacks of the orientalists, who distort the
concept of Islamic Jihaad,” Qutb wrote in his book Milestones.
“It was a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to
mankind, using resources according to the actual human situation, and
it had definite stages, for each of which it utilized new methods.”
Even Brennan’s NYU host advocated violent jihad. A December 1986 article appearing in ISNA’s official magazine Islamic Horizons
notes that “jihad of the sword is the actual taking up of arms against
the evil situation with the intention of changing it,” that “anyone
killed in jihad is rewarded with Paradise,” and that “a believer who
participates in jihad is superior to a believer who does not.”
Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the senior Muslim Brotherhood imam who the Obama administration reportedly has used in its negotiations with the Taliban, connects jihad with fighting in his book Fiqh of Jihad.
In it, he says that Muslims may engage in violent jihad in the event
Muslim lands are threatened by or occupied by non-Muslims as he contends
is the case with Israel.
These Brotherhood treatises are relevant because Brennan’s host,
ISNA, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States,
some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” In addition, the federal judge in the case found “ample evidence”
connecting ISNA to Muslim Brotherhood operations known as the Holy Land
Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.
ISNA has sought to publicly moderate its image, yet it has kept radicals such as Jamal Badawi on its board of directors and granted a 2008 community-service award to Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, as well as a former ISNA board member.
Badawi has defended violent jihad including suicide bombings and has suggested that Islam is superior to secular democracy. Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
At the NYU event, Brennan was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made Qutb’s writings required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has advocated
against using terms like “Islamic terrorism” since the earliest days
after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as “an academic
whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and
as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have
been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.”
Brennan met privately around the time of the NYU speech with another
advocate of ignoring the Islamic motivation driving many terrorists.
Both Salam al-Marayati and his organization, the Muslim Public Affairs
Council (MPAC) have long records of defending suspected terrorists and terror supporters and of arguing the terrorist threat in America is exaggerated.
During a 2005 ISNA conference, al-Marayati blasted the idea that
Muslims would be used as informants to thwart possible terrorist plots.
“Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We
should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be
pursued in this country,” he said. “So, number one, we reject any
effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one
another.”
The White House invited
al-Marayati to attend the NYU speech despite his prior comments
suggesting Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, condemning the
FBI’s use of informants in counter-terror investigations, and his argument that Hizballah engages in “legitimate resistance.”
After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the administration’s
policy of sugar-coating terrorist motives. “Mr. Brennan made two
important points in his address that signified the importance of MPAC’s
government engagement over the last 15 years in Washington,” an MPAC
statement said. Among them, “He rejected the label of ‘jihadist’ to
describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with
religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on
counterterrorism.”
Terrorists Disagree
While Brennan and his associates like Mattson and al-Marayati may
wish to disconnect terrorism from religion, this strategy has proven
meaningless among those who plot attacks against Americans. Many
describe acting out of a belief that America is at war with Islam.
Asserting that religious motivation doesn’t exist does nothing to lessen
the threat.
When Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo’s mother asked her son what would
drive him to plot a bombing and shooting attack on a restaurant that
serves personnel at Fort Hood, Tex., his answer was succinct.
End note: In the wartime annals of American history, putting a Muslim in charge of the CIA is not the first time American soldiers have fought a battle with an enemy who had one of their own running the show. The Korean War was fought by American troops fighting under the flag of the United Nations. While communist North Korea was being aided by communist China and the Soviet Union, the United Nations office of Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs was coordinating all of our U.S. Military troop movements.
For decades, since the founding charter of the U.N. was written, only Communist leaders would be appointed to fill the UN's highest military post, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. Fourteen of the fifteen men who held this vital post up until 1995 (and probably into the new century) represented the USSR. The one exception was Dragoslav Protitich, a Communist from Yugoslavia. So when American soldiers fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam in partnership with the UN, the top UN military leaders were Communists. No wonder American soldier fought two futile and deadly wars.**
Since the founding of the U.N. in 1945, when delegates from 50 countries met in San Francisco to sign the UN Charter, U.S. State Department employee and Communist spy, Alger Hiss, co-authored that founding charter and served as the first acting UN Secretary-General.**
The headlines are scary enough to cause nightmares but our ever diligent news media either ignores the implications and lulls us back to sleep or makes light of the situation. Such is America today where the government first claimed the right to suspend the Bill of Rights to gain advantage and track terrorists. Then they put most of us in the categories they defined as terrorists. Then that same government gave itself the power to arrest and detain without trial or legal representation any American who opposed the government. And, of course most conservatives do oppose the government we now have. Then the government announced they will be flying predator drones across America's skies. And now, our government declares it has the right to kill any American, on American soil, it decides is supporting terrorism - and take note of how they defined terrorists in the first place. For purposes of explanation I am defining the Democratic Party as "our government" since they successfully stole the last elections and are now calling all the shots in Washington. (no pun intended) Now some of our elected representatives are trying to negotiate a compromised solution whereby it would take a panel of judges to decide which American will be targeted for assassination. Isn't that a relief.
US senators propose assassination court to screen drone targets
By Judson Berger, Published February 08, 2013, FoxNews.com
It sounds like an Orwellian idea from a futuristic sci-fi movie.
Government officials gather in a secret courtroom, poring over documents
and weighing whether to approve the fly-by killing of a suspected
terrorist.
If the judges say yes, the target dies. If not, the target lives.
But U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court
as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program -- a secretive
operation that, as it is, sounds like thriller fiction, but isn't.
The idea was bandied about during Thursday's confirmation hearing for
CIA director nominee John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he
thinks the concept is "worthy of discussion." The nominee, as a vocal
supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutiny for
what some lawmakers see as the administration's unchecked power to kill,
even if the target is an American citizen.
Will there be more house explosions coming soon to your neighborhood? There has been a rash of house explosions across America lately, due mostly to faulty gas lines. A few were even the result of some murderous intent. I am not a conspiracy nut like the guy who claimed the house explosion in Indianapolis was caused by a drone launched Hellfire missile. But images of drone strikes in Pakistan that have targeted al Qaida insurgents produce results that are almost identical. It is also well known that the government has been creating a database of GPS coordinates for every home. Global Positioning Satellites have been used to target the drone strikes in Pakistan, as well. Lately it seems fairly easy to spot the homes of conservatives because they almost always have an American flag outside. And conservative bloggers like me get a lot of web site hits from Washington, D.C. Maybe the current wave of house explosion were caused by gas explosions but it sure gives the government a handy excuse to cover their collective asses when the poo-poo hits the fan. Local news media thinks this is all very funny. The Kentucky Enquirer ran some political cartoons on its editorial page today. They called it "A lighter take on the week's news" but I don't see any humor in it. The largest one shows a smiling Obama riding a predator drone. Granted, the cartoonist made reference to the Constitution but since the media, with the exception of Fox News, hasn't given much coverage to the discussion on drone warfare over America's skies or the authorized killing of Americans, the point of the humor doesn't come across very well.
This is what happens when the mainstream news media fails to publish stories that may cause embarrassment to a Democrat administration. Couple the Fox News coverage about the drones to another story this past week about a candid remark made by Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters from California and you have all the makings of a Tom Clancy novel. This was picked up by several conservative blogs including the following from theconservativebyte.com
Here’s Maxine Waters. This was last Sunday on TV One’s Washington Watch with Roland Martin. Maxine Waters, Democrat from California. Her district is basically the Watts area of Los Angeles, and Roland Martin said, “The reality is like anything else, you’d better get what you can while Obama’s there because, look, come 2016, that’s it.” Now, what Roland Martin’s saying here is all of you who are looking for prosperity from the government, you better get it and get it now. Get it while you can, get it while Obama’s there, because come 2016, he’s not gonna be there, and then you’re gonna be on your own. You better get what you can get now. And here’s what Maxine Waters said in reply.
WATERS: Well, you know, I don’t know. And I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.
Rush Limbaugh also had an interesting opinion on this candid statement. "RUSH: Hmm. Okay. Cool. Fine. What's that got to do with getting
benefits after 2016? Maybe she didn't understand what he was talking
about. He's talking about, you better get in there, get your goodies
right now because in 2016 he's gone. Better get it while you can. She
says, "I don't know, Roland, he's got this database." Maybe she means
he's not going anywhere. Maybe that's what she means, folks. He's not
going anywhere, 'cause he's got this database with information about
everything on every individual. I'll bet that's what she meant,
Snerdley. That 2016 isn't a big deal 'cause he's not going anywhere.
That has to be it. "
And lets not forget that ominous comment attributed to Barack Hussein Obama's White House Senior Advisor,Valerie Jarrett, “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone
not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t
forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us
will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress
won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after
this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”
Now all we need to worry about is Barack Hussein Obama's Civilian National Security Force, the one he promised to create back in July 2008. With this update from WesternJournalism.com.
The Department of Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in just the past 10 months. The military used approximately 70-million rounds in each year of the Iraq war. Could it be that DHS is looking to arm a new civilian national security force?
It's getting to sound like George Orwell's 1984 all over again, only worse. Orwell's worst fears were re-indoctrination.
This blog site uses cookies from Google and from Stat Counter to analyze visitor traffic. The only information captured by these stat counters are your IP address along with your city, state and country. The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires this notice. If you don't want this information recorded you should leave now and don't come back.
My name is Nelson Abdullah. I am 77-years old and after 40 years of working for two major airlines, I retired 15 years ago in 2002, a few months after the 9-11 attack on America. My wife and I have been married for more than 56 years. We celebrated our Golden Anniversary in April 2010.
My wife and I are both lifelong Catholics and registered Republicans.
Our country was created as a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws, held together by the fabric of the Constitution. The Constitution limits the powers of the government while the first ten amendments, called The Bill of Rights, guarantee the rights of We The People. Defending the Republic.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” —The Declaration of Independence—July 4th, 1776.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Raw Story 
